THE ADMINISTRATION: Nixon's Nightmare: Fighting to Be Believed

(10 of 14)

considered returning to California to search Fielding's house for Ellsberg's records, but decided that was too risky. Hunt said he tried to tell Colson about the unsuccessful search, but Colson refused to listen, saying: "I don't want to hear anything about it." Hunt also testified that his group later gathered FBI records on Ellsberg's personality, and—these were used to help the CIA compile "a secondhand psychiatric profile" of Ellsberg.

The unfolding of Hunt's testimony in Judge Byrne's courtroom was only one of a series of startling developments there. The judge opened the week's proceedings with astonishing testimony of his own from the bench: he had been summoned to an April 5 meeting with John Ehrlichman at the Western White House at San Clemente. Ehrlichman brought up the possibility of Byrne's becoming permanent director of the FBI. Byrne said he had replied that he would discuss no federal appointment while the Ellsberg case was being tried. He also had had a formal, handshake meeting, "lasting probably less than a minute," with President Nixon himself. Defense counsel erupted and filed a formal motion for a mistrial on the basis of what they called "possibly an attempt to offer a bribe to the court—an attempt made in the virtual presence of the President."

Byrne took that motion under advisement. Later, incredibly, he announced that he had had a second meeting with Ehrlichman on April 7 and had reaffirmed his refusal to consider a new appointment at that time. He failed to make clear why this second meeting was necessary.

Defense lawyers moved again for a mistrial, and further for dismissal of all charges against Ellsberg and Anthony J. Russo, "with prejudice"—meaning that the Government could never re-open the case against them. The White House interference was, so far as legal historians could recall, without precedent. Defense counsel, their score of legal assistants and the defendants decided to take no further part in the proceedings. When Byrne opened court next morning he saw the defense table was bare—no papers, no files, not even a pencil. In effect, the defense boycotted the trial by refusing to examine witnesses. Byrne insisted: "I am convinced beyond any doubt at all that nothing has compromised my ability to act as a fair and impartial judge in this case." With that, he chose to sit tight, at least over the weekend.

Byrne continued to order the prosecution to reveal all the sources of its evidence, so he could judge whether any had been obtained illegally. The Government's case would thereby be "tainted." It seemed that he was thus establishing a basis for dismissing the case on technical grounds. Alternatively, if the Government refused to disclose sources (because of possible embarrassment to the highest federal offices), the prosecution itself might move for dismissal. The judge complained, in fact, that some Government officials were refusing to talk to the FBI. Either way, the Government would be humiliated and Ellsberg vindicated.

Leaks. Acting Presidential Counsel Garment last week released guidelines for all Administration officials who might be called to testify about the Watergate-related cases—and these seemed to explain the spreading Government silence in the Ellsberg case about telephone